Text Size

-

+

reset

Numbers matter

Obama is swimming up Niagara until joblessness improves. But, even though Obama doesn’t directly control the economy, he has not been a disciplined or effective communicator about the state of the economy and his prescriptions for it. People will tolerate a weak economy if they feel there is an upward trajectory. But Obama has not managed to instill that confidence.

“The economy is off the charts on what people care about — nothing is a close second,” one of the advisers said.

The unemployment rate is expected to remain near 9.5 percent through the election, which is a big reason that some White House officials are even more pessimistic than Gibbs about the chances of keeping control of the House.

It doesn’t matter that Republicans such as New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg say Obama’s policies helped avert a worse economic calamity than most Americans will ever realize — or that the federal government is turning a profit on some of the investments it made in bailing out companies in 2009.

No politician can escape the gravitational pull of bad employment numbers and economic figures in real time.

The liberal echo chamber

Polls show most self-described liberals still strongly support Obama. But an elite group of commentators on the left — many of whom are unhappy with him and are rewarded with more attention by being critical of a fellow Democrat — has a disproportionate influence on perceptions.

The liberal blogosphere grew in response to Bush. But it is still a movement marked by immaturity and impetuousness — unaccustomed to its own side holding power and the responsibilities and choices that come with that.

So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self-protective politician first and a liberal second, even though that is what he campaigned as. The liberal blogs cheer the fact that Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s scalp has been replaced with that of Gen. David Petraeus, even though both men are equally hawkish on Afghanistan, but barely applauded the passage of health care reform. They treat the firing of a blogger from The Washington Post as an event of historic significance, while largely averting their gaze from the fact that major losses for Democrats in the fall elections would virtually kill hopes for progressive legislation during the next couple of years.

In private conversations, White House officials are contemptuous of what they see as liberal lamentations unhinged from historical context or contemporary political realities.

The BP cam

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) beat his chest to force BP to make public the footage of gushing oil caught by an underwater camera. Democrats celebrated that as a victory for public accountability. But it was actually a painful defeat for Obama. The camera produced an indelible image played 24/7 on cable television that highlighted how ineffectual Obama has been for two months at stopping the catastrophe.

Obama is not responsible for the leak, and, realistically, there was little he could do to expedite the repair. But for an irritable public, the Gulf Coast debacle was a reminder — horribly timed from Obama’s perspective — that Big Business and Big Government are often a problem, not a solution.

This man has been a TOTAL disaster for America. The Bailouts and out of control spending, the perpetual unemployment benefits. The lies he told and broken pledges he made to get elected. He is a crook. Obama has already lost the American people. We are just waiting until 2012 to get some real Leadership and fiscal responsibility back in the White House. You will see the begining of this change in November. Now the Democrats want to bailout more union jobs like they did for the Auto workers with borrowed money ? Unbelievable. Real change is coming in November and that will be CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN !!!

Obama has done damage to America. That is what his short reign has accomplished, AP reporters' fawning aside. I'd much rather him have not gotten anything done, than what he has done to us so far. His is a failed presidency, no doubt.

...Part of it is because we are divided, even on the left…And part of it is the culture of immediate gratification.”

He has accomplished a lot but at what cost? Healtcare isn't reformed, they just made the healthcare mess wider - where's cost conyainment as prices will just go higher? Then goes after Teacher's Unions (all unions in fact) should be rewarded for merit and not tenure. How hard should he fight to get congress to do their job?

If insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result, what do WE call re-electing the politicians that caused all the problems in the first place with an expectation that they will fix them?

Don't Re-Elect ANY Incumbent Politician

"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

The reason that Obama loses by winning is because the goals he is committed to are in opposition to interests of the publc. His who world-view is distorted, a little detail that has been kept hidden by the propaganda wing of the socialist party, which was once known as the mainstream media.

He is committed to turning this country into a European-style socialist nation where all the wealth gets "spread around". Well, if he's going to spread everyone's wealth around, where's the incentive to create any? That's why socialist countries are so poor.

The result of these marxist policies has been an ongoing recession with 10% unemployment, trillions per year in deficits, jobs disappearing overseas, open borders with illegals streaming across them, and a war on business that has stifled any hope of ending this mess.

He's a loser because the policies of the left are losers. It has taken total control of the government by the socialist party for many people to realize it.

The reason is simple. When a good portion of the American voter voted for Obama they had no idea who they actually were voting for. The fault lies with them and not Obama. Anyone with eyes to see (read) and ears to listen could tell that Obama was the most dangerous politican to ever step on the political stage.

Now Globe magazine has jumped into the citizenship controversy with a July 12 cover story that states, “Obama was not born in the U.S.” The supermarket tabloid may not have the best track record for accurate reporting among mainstream publications, but it does have a large circulation and its voice and what it has to say will undoubtedly bring the issue of Obama's citizenship to the attention of a lot more people and cause them to consider seriously if there is anything to it.

The introduction of the article reads:

A former Hawaii records official is sending shock waves through Washington, D.C., by revealing there is absolutely no birth certificate for Barack Obama!

The bombshell revelation backs up long-standing claims that Obama — who insists he was born in a Honolulu hospital — really took his first breath in Kenya and, as a result, violates the U.S. Consitution’s requirements for the President to be a “natural born” American.

"The official, Timothy Adams, claims to have had access to Social Security records, drivers’ license, and passport information, and “just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity.” He reportedly confirmed that there exists no proof that President Obama was born in Honolulu.

Adams alleges that upon his request for two different local hospitals to provide Obama’s birth certificate, he was told that no such record exists, defending his inquisition by asserting that it was part of his job requirements to “verify the voters’ identity and citizenship.”

The Globe goes on to claim, “America’s current Commander-in-Chief, 48, has not only refused to produce his official birth certificate but has gone to great lengths — and expense — to seal records from his past, according to sources. He once mistakenly named two different hospitals where he was supposed to be born — and his paternal grandmother insists she witnessed his birth in Kenya!”

In addition to the coverage of Adams’ shocking accusations, the Globe published an incriminating photograph of President Obama from 1987, where he appeared with his entire family in Kenya. The magazine reports:

Coming on the heels of Adams’ charges, a damning photo of Obama in Kenya with relatives has surfaced. Snapped in 1987, some people believe it offers more proof that the President was born in his father’s African homeland."

He is getting things done alright. But against the will of the American people. What kind of president is that? One that needs to go.

And here we have the classic example of exactly why I developed the signature in my post: THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is based on sheer ignorance (and a lot of fear--which often arises FROM ignorance).

And yet politicians who have access to facts and staff to analyze facts are nevertheless supposed to always "listen to the people." I don't see how a country can possibly govern itself well if it only follows the wishes of the clueless. That makes no sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, the clueless are almost ALWAYS the loudest voices in the crowd while, behind the scenes, the educated quietly influence.

Granted, the founding fathers figured it out fine by creating the House, which elects anew every two years in order to reflect even the most ignorant electorate's will, while the Senate is more stable, able to decide without continual fear of being kicked out...

Except the Senate's intended impact has now been totally f'ed up by operational rules which the founding fathers never intended.

OK to answer your questions you liberal idiots: [ Post made in response to some smarta%ss liberals]

Read the requirements [All three have not been met]:

This does not say requirements for status as (NATURAL BORN you idiots) to be Natural BORN both parents have to be US CITIZENS and Child Born in US or US Territory.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true: 1. One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born 2. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth; 3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

Once again this test is for be a "citizen" not Natural Born - but let's address the issue - it doesn't matter where he was born for the law back then - it was determined by the birth parent.

His mother had to meet all three conditions but failed on number three - she was eighteen and did not have five years in US after her 14th birthday - so Barry Sorrento AKA Barack Obama - is not even eligible for US Citizenship status under the laws even if he was born in Hawaii; the anchor baby law was not until 1986.

His status would be based on his father by default [British as Kenya was ruled by Britain at that time] then he was an Indonesian citizen after his adoption as Indonesia doesn't allow dual citizenship - one thing is clear not only for sure is he not a Natural Born Citizen he is not even a Citizen of US at ALL.

But, even more importantly, why would her husband, who was still married to a wife living in Kenya (that she did not know about) take her there. You liberal idiot she wasn't married - she was his mistress and got pregnant out of wedlock ; and because of her ineligibility to pass on her citizenship [see above] Obama was a British Subject at time of birth; then later he was adopted while growing up as Muslim student in Indonesia - simple fact and clear evidence.

This is biggest con artist job of the left in history and they don't give a sh%t because they want to destroy our free capitalist republic and install world socialist control [no bullsh%t}

The problem with this country are guiliable idiot uninformed voters whom follow the bullsh%t they feed you from the left - not only is this guy not a NATURAL BORN citizen he is an Illegal Alien in violation of immigation law and has commited felonies thru fraud in becoming a lawyer, senator and president. Wake up America and don't believe the liberal Bullsh%t!

war and anti-terrorism policies are remarkably similar to those advocated by the man he blames for most the country’s problems: George W. Bush. He’s butting heads with the teachers unions by enticing states to quit rewarding teachers on tenure instead of merit. On immigration, he stresses border security instead of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Are you watching the same movie as me? Truly, using the NY Times as a reseach document ain't cutting it.

Case in point: war & terrorism policy similar to Bush? Other than the fact that he's not pulled the troops out... Terror attacks are now "man-made disasters" "Radical Islam" is gone from WH dictionary.

Case in point: butting heads with teachers' unions? Billions of stimulus dolllars went to states that kept both teachers and government workers on the job... and he wants more.

Case in point: Immigration... Borders secure? Did the Arizona story slip by you? Amnesty? What does "a path to freedom" mean?

Pay attention to what he says, at the same time you watch what he does. The tough talk is all about stuff that he can't/won't deliver. ie: Nuclear Power, Gitmo, and on and on.

"The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”

Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt."

It all boils down to job creation. When Biden and others tout that the stimulus money saved millions of jobs vs the same Administration saying unemployment will not go over 8% if the same stimulus was passed. Well we sit at 9.5% with no end in sight, 900,000 home foreclosures in 2009 and on track for over a Million (1,000,000) foreclosures this year but I guess that is the fault of the American people's need for immediate gratification.

The democratic congress and senate have passed all of the major bills their liberal leaders have pushed for the last 3 years. How many things has Prez. Obama accomplished without the leadership of Nancy and Harry?

Please consider removing many of the liberal democrats and RINOs from office.

Jimmy Carter said 3 things failed his re-election to a 2nd term. 1. The hostage crisis went on for 400 days. 2. Unemployment started to escalate 3. bad economy.

Obama has the oil spill crisis lasting 80 plus days so far and Americans give him low approval for the handling of it, unemployment has stayed at nearly 10% despite a 1 trillion dollar Stimulus and the economy for most Americans is worse. Combine that with a President who favors illegal aliens and sues the state of Arizona trying to protect their citizens.

"As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.."